Pharmacokinetics

Quick Answer

Pharmacokinetics describes the mathematical relationship between drug dose and time-dependent changes in drug concentration within the body, encompassing the processes of absorption (input into the systemic circulation), distribution (transfer between body compartments), metabolism (biochemical transformation), and elimination (removal from the body). The volume of distribution (Vd) represents an apparent volume that relates plasma drug concentration to total body drug amount, with values ranging from 3-5 L (extracellular water) for hydrophilic drugs to 10-100 L/kg (extensive tissue distribution) for lipophilic agents. Clearance (Cl) quantifies the body's capacity to eliminate a drug, calculated as the volume of blood completely cleared of drug per unit time (mL/min or L/hr), and follows first-order kinetics where a constant fraction is eliminated per time unit regardless of concentration. The elimination half-life (t½) describes the time required for plasma concentration to decrease by 50%, calculated as 0.693 × Vd/Cl, and determines dosing intervals and time to steady-state (approximately 5 × t½). Context-sensitive half-time (CSHT) represents the time for plasma concentration to decrease by 50% after terminating an infusion of specific duration, accounting for drug redistribution from peripheral tissues—a critical concept for predicting emergence times with intravenous anesthetics. Compartment models (one, two, or three) mathematically describe drug distribution, with the three-compartment model describing central (plasma), rapidly equilibrating (vascular-rich organs), and slowly equilibrating (adipose/muscle) compartments, essential for understanding complex drugs like propofol and fentanyl. [1-12]

Pharmacokinetic Fundamentals

Definition and Scope

Pharmacokinetics (PK) is the quantitative study of drug disposition within the body, derived from the Greek "pharmakon" (drug) and "kinetikos" (motion). It provides the mathematical framework for describing how drug concentrations change over time following administration, enabling prediction of drug effects, optimization of dosing regimens, and understanding of interindividual variability. The four fundamental processes comprising pharmacokinetics—absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination (ADME)—are governed by physiological and physicochemical principles that determine drug behavior in clinical practice. [13-18]

The relevance of pharmacokinetics to anaesthesia is profound. Intravenous anesthetics, opioids, neuromuscular blocking agents, and vasoactive drugs all exhibit complex pharmacokinetic profiles that influence onset time, duration of action, recovery characteristics, and accumulation patterns. Understanding these principles allows anaesthetists to select appropriate drugs, calculate loading doses and infusion rates, predict emergence times, and manage special populations including elderly patients, obese patients, and those with organ dysfunction. [19-25]

First-Order vs Zero-Order Kinetics

Most drugs follow first-order elimination kinetics, where a constant fraction (percentage) of the drug is eliminated per unit time regardless of concentration. This occurs when elimination capacity is not saturated and clearance remains constant. Mathematically, this produces exponential decay curves with linear elimination when plotted on semi-logarithmic coordinates. The rate of elimination is proportional to concentration: dC/dt = -k × C, where k is the elimination rate constant. [26-30]

Zero-order kinetics occurs when elimination capacity is saturated, resulting in a constant amount of drug being eliminated per unit time regardless of concentration. This produces linear decay on regular coordinates. Clinically significant examples include phenytoin at high concentrations and ethanol metabolism. Understanding the kinetic order is essential for predicting drug accumulation; drugs with zero-order kinetics at therapeutic concentrations exhibit concentration-dependent toxicity and require careful monitoring. [31-36]

Table: Comparison of kinetic orders and their clinical implications. [37-44]

Volume of Distribution (Vd)

Concept and Calculation

The volume of distribution (Vd) is a pharmacokinetic parameter that relates the amount of drug in the body to the measured plasma concentration. It represents an apparent or theoretical volume rather than a physiological space and is calculated as: Vd = Amount of drug in body / Plasma drug concentration. The units are typically L or L/kg when normalized to body weight. [45-52]

Vd provides insight into the extent of drug distribution within the body:

• Small Vd (3-5 L): Drug remains primarily in plasma (e.g., heparin, warfarin)
• Moderate Vd (10-30 L): Distribution limited to extracellular fluid (e.g., gentamicin, penicillins)
• Large Vd (30-100 L): Distribution into total body water (e.g., ethanol, lithium)
• Very large Vd (>100 L): Extensive tissue binding and lipophilic distribution (e.g., propofol, fentanyl, digoxin)

[53-60]

Factors Influencing Volume of Distribution

Multiple factors determine the magnitude of Vd:

Physicochemical properties: Lipophilic drugs (high octanol:water partition coefficient) readily cross cell membranes and distribute into adipose tissue, resulting in large Vd. Hydrophilic drugs remain in extracellular fluid with smaller Vd. Molecular size influences distribution, with smaller molecules (<500 Da) penetrating tissues more easily. [61-68]

Protein binding: Highly protein-bound drugs (>90%) have restricted distribution as only the unbound fraction can distribute into tissues. Changes in protein binding (e.g., hypoalbuminemia, pregnancy) alter the free fraction and effective Vd. [69-74]

Tissue binding: Some drugs exhibit high affinity for specific tissues (e.g., digoxin for myocardium, chloroquine for liver), dramatically increasing Vd. Tissue binding may be saturable at high concentrations. [75-80]

Physiological factors: Age (neonates have higher proportion of body water), obesity (increased adipose mass), pregnancy (increased plasma volume), and body composition all influence Vd. [81-88]

Table: Volume of distribution for representative drugs with clinical implications. [89-98]

Clinical Applications

Understanding Vd is essential for calculating loading doses: Loading dose = Target concentration × Vd. For drugs with large Vd, substantial loading doses are required to achieve therapeutic concentrations rapidly. However, the choice of weight descriptor (total body weight vs ideal body weight vs lean body weight) becomes critical, particularly for obese patients. [99-106]

In critical care, Vd changes with capillary leak syndrome, fluid resuscitation, and hypoalbuminemia. Hydrophilic antibiotics (e.g., beta-lactams, aminoglycosides) exhibit increased Vd in critically ill patients due to fluid shifts and capillary leak, potentially requiring dose adjustments to maintain therapeutic concentrations. [107-114]

Clearance (Cl)

Definition and Physiological Basis

Clearance (Cl) quantifies the efficiency of drug elimination from the body, defined as the volume of blood or plasma completely cleared of drug per unit time. The units are typically mL/min or L/hr. Clearance represents the sum of all elimination processes: Cl_total = Cl_hepatic + Cl_renal + Cl_other (pulmonary, biliary, etc.). [115-122]

Conceptually, clearance relates the rate of elimination to the drug concentration: Rate of elimination = Cl × Concentration. For first-order kinetics, clearance remains constant regardless of concentration, though it may change with organ function, drug interactions, or physiological states. [123-130]

Hepatic Clearance

Hepatic drug clearance depends on three factors described by the well-stirred model: hepatic blood flow (Q), free fraction of drug (fᵤ), and intrinsic clearance (Cl_int, the inherent ability of hepatocytes to metabolize the drug). The relationship is: Cl_hepatic = Q × (fᵤ × Cl_int) / (Q + fᵤ × Cl_int). [131-138]

This equation reveals three categories of drugs based on hepatic extraction:

High extraction ratio drugs (flow-limited): Drugs with fᵤ × Cl_int >> Q, where clearance approximates hepatic blood flow (Cl ≈ Q). These drugs are extensively metabolized regardless of protein binding. Examples include propofol, lidocaine, and morphine. Clearance changes with hepatic blood flow alterations (shock, hepatic disease affecting perfusion). [139-146]

Low extraction ratio drugs (capacity-limited): Drugs with fᵤ × Cl_int << Q, where clearance depends on free fraction and intrinsic clearance (Cl ≈ fᵤ × Cl_int). These drugs are metabolized slowly; clearance changes with protein binding or enzyme activity but not with hepatic blood flow. Examples include warfarin and phenytoin. [147-154]

Intermediate extraction ratio drugs: Drugs where both hepatic blood flow and intrinsic clearance influence clearance. Examples include midazolam and alfentanil. [155-160]

Table: Hepatic extraction categories and clinical implications. [161-170]

Renal Clearance

Renal clearance represents the sum of three processes: glomerular filtration, tubular secretion, and tubular reabsorption. Cl_renal = (Cl_filtration + Cl_secretion) - Cl_reabsorption. [171-178]

Glomerular filtration: Only free (unbound) drug is filtered. Filtration clearance = fᵤ × GFR. Hydrophilic drugs rely primarily on renal elimination. [179-184]

Tubular secretion: Active transport processes in the proximal tubule can secrete drugs against concentration gradients. This process is saturable and subject to drug interactions (e.g., probenecid inhibits penicillin secretion). [185-190]

Tubular reabsorption: Lipophilic drugs may be passively reabsorbed in the distal tubule depending on urine pH and flow rate. Ionization state affects reabsorption—weak acids (pKa 3-7.5) are ionized in alkaline urine and excreted; weak bases (pKa 7.5-10.5) are ionized in acidic urine. [191-198]

Total Body Clearance and Clinical Relevance

Total body clearance determines the steady-state concentration achieved during continuous drug administration: Css = Infusion rate / Cl. Higher clearance requires higher infusion rates to maintain target concentrations. [199-206]

Clearance determines the elimination half-life in conjunction with Vd: t½ = 0.693 × Vd / Cl. Drugs may have similar half-lives but very different clearance and Vd values—fentanyl (Cl ~13 L/hr, Vd ~350 L, t½ ~3.5 hr) versus alfentanil (Cl ~27 L/hr, Vd ~20 L, t½ ~1.5 hr). Understanding these relationships is essential for rational drug selection in different clinical scenarios. [207-216]

Elimination Half-Life (t½)

Definition and Calculation

The elimination half-life (t½) is the time required for the plasma drug concentration to decrease by 50% during the elimination phase. It is calculated from the elimination rate constant (k): t½ = 0.693 / k, or equivalently from clearance and volume of distribution: t½ = 0.693 × Vd / Cl. [217-224]

Half-life determines several clinically important parameters:

• Time to elimination: After n half-lives, approximately (1/2)ⁿ of the original drug remains
• Time to steady-state: Approximately 5 half-lives are required to reach steady-state during continuous administration
• Dosing interval: Optimal dosing intervals are typically 1-2 half-lives for maintaining therapeutic concentrations
• Washout time: Complete drug elimination requires approximately 5 half-lives after cessation

[225-234]

Distribution Half-Life vs Elimination Half-Life

Following intravenous bolus administration, drug concentrations decline rapidly due to distribution from plasma into peripheral tissues, followed by slower elimination. The initial rapid decline represents the distribution phase (alpha phase), while the terminal slower decline represents the elimination phase (beta phase). [235-242]

The distribution half-life (t½α) reflects the time for drug to redistribute from plasma to rapidly equilibrating tissues. For many intravenous anesthetics, this occurs within minutes and determines the initial offset of action. The elimination half-life (t½β) reflects metabolism and true elimination from the body and determines drug accumulation during prolonged administration. [243-250]

Table: Distribution and elimination half-lives for intravenous anesthetics. [251-262]

Factors Affecting Half-Life

Changes in clearance or volume of distribution alter half-life:

Reduced clearance: Hepatic or renal impairment, enzyme inhibition, reduced hepatic blood flow (low cardiac output states), reduced GFR. Examples include prolonged opioid effects in renal failure due to active metabolite accumulation. [263-270]

Increased volume of distribution: Obesity, fluid loading, pregnancy, hypoalbuminemia increasing free fraction. While Vd increase alone prolongs half-life, the clinical effect may be reduced if drug is distributed to inactive tissue sites. [271-278]

Clinical scenarios: Elderly patients often exhibit reduced clearance (hepatic/renal function decline) and altered Vd (decreased muscle mass, increased adipose), resulting in prolonged half-lives for many drugs. Neonates have immature hepatic enzymes and reduced GFR, requiring dose adjustments. [279-286]

Context-Sensitive Half-Time (CSHT)

Concept and Clinical Relevance

Context-sensitive half-time (CSHT) is the time required for the plasma concentration of a drug to decrease by 50% after terminating an infusion designed to maintain constant plasma concentration for a specified duration (the "context"). Unlike elimination half-life, which assumes first-order kinetics from a single compartment, CSHT accounts for drug redistribution from peripheral compartments back into plasma. [287-296]

The term "context-sensitive" refers to the fact that half-time varies depending on the duration of infusion. For drugs with extensive tissue distribution, longer infusions allow more time for drug to accumulate in peripheral tissues. When the infusion stops, drug redistributes from these tissues back into plasma, slowing the decline in plasma concentration and prolonging the time to 50% decrease. [297-306]

Comparison of Intravenous Anesthetics

Different intravenous anesthetics exhibit markedly different CSHT profiles:

Propofol: CSHT remains relatively constant (approximately 10-15 minutes) even after infusions lasting several hours due to its high metabolic clearance and absence of significant peripheral accumulation. This explains propofol's predictable emergence characteristics regardless of infusion duration. [307-316]

Fentanyl: CSHT increases dramatically with infusion duration—from approximately 20 minutes after 1 hour to over 300 minutes after 8 hours. This occurs because fentanyl's high lipid solubility leads to extensive accumulation in adipose tissue, which slowly releases drug back into circulation after cessation. [317-326]

Remifentanil: CSHT remains constant at 3-5 minutes regardless of infusion duration due to rapid metabolism by tissue and plasma esterases. This unique property makes remifentanil ideal for prolonged infusions where rapid emergence is desired. [327-334]

Table: Context-sensitive half-times for intravenous anesthetics at different infusion durations. [335-346]

Clinical Applications

Understanding CSHT is essential for selecting drugs for different clinical scenarios:

• Short procedures (<2 hours): Fentanyl, alfentanil, or remifentanil all provide acceptable emergence times
• Prolonged procedures (>4 hours): Propofol or remifentanil preferred due to predictable CSHT; fentanyl causes delayed emergence
• Cardiac surgery with postoperative ventilation: Fentanyl acceptable as continued ventilation negates CSHT concerns
• Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA): Propofol infusion preferred over thiopental for predictable emergence

[347-358]

Compartment Models

One-Compartment Model

The one-compartment model assumes the body behaves as a single, uniformly mixed compartment. Following intravenous bolus, drug distributes instantaneously throughout the body, and elimination occurs directly from this single compartment. The concentration-time relationship is: C(t) = C₀ × e^(-kt), where C₀ is the initial concentration and k is the elimination rate constant. [359-368]

While overly simplistic for most drugs, the one-compartment model adequately describes drugs with rapid, uniform distribution and no significant tissue binding. Pharmacokinetic parameters are easily calculated: Vd = Dose/C₀, Cl = k × Vd, t½ = 0.693/k. [369-376]

Clinical examples where one-compartment kinetics reasonably apply include aminoglycosides in patients with normal renal function and lithium in therapeutic dosing. However, most intravenous anesthetics require more complex models. [377-382]

Two-Compartment Model

The two-compartment model divides the body into a central compartment (plasma and rapidly perfused tissues) and a peripheral compartment (slowly perfused tissues). Drug equilibrates rapidly within the central compartment and distributes more slowly to the peripheral compartment. [383-390]

Mathematically, the concentration-time curve following bolus administration shows bi-exponential decay: C(t) = A × e^(-αt) + B × e^(-βt) Where α represents the distribution phase (rapid decline) and β represents the elimination phase (slow decline). [391-398]

Pharmacokinetic parameters include:

• Vc: Volume of central compartment
• Vd_ss: Volume of distribution at steady-state (Vc + Vp)
• k10: Elimination rate constant from central compartment
• k12, k21: Intercompartmental transfer rate constants
• Cl: Systemic clearance

[399-408]

The two-compartment model better describes many drugs than the one-compartment model, particularly those with moderate tissue distribution. However, most intravenous anesthetics exhibit more complex distribution patterns requiring three compartments. [409-416]

Three-Compartment Model

The three-compartment model provides the best description for most intravenous anesthetics and provides the basis for target-controlled infusion (TCI) systems. The compartments are:

Central compartment (Compartment 1): Plasma and highly perfused organs (brain, heart, liver, kidneys). Drug concentration here determines pharmacological effect. Volume (Vc) is approximately 10-20 L for a 70 kg adult. [417-424]

Rapidly equilibrating peripheral compartment (Compartment 2): Moderately perfused tissues (muscle, skin). Drug transfers between central and this compartment relatively quickly (half-life minutes). Volume (V2) is approximately 20-40 L. [425-432]

Slowly equilibrating peripheral compartment (Compartment 3): Poorly perfused tissues (adipose, bone). Drug transfers slowly (half-life hours). Volume (V3) is approximately 100-300 L for lipophilic drugs. [433-442]

Mathematically, concentration follows tri-exponential decay: C(t) = A × e^(-πt) + B × e^(-αt) + C × e^(-βt) Where π represents the initial rapid distribution, α the intermediate distribution, and β the terminal elimination. [443-452]

Microconstants and Macroconstants

Compartment models are characterized by microconstants (transfer rate constants between compartments) and macroconstants (hybrid rate constants describing observed concentration-time curves). [453-460]

Microconstants:

• k10: Elimination from central compartment
• k12: Transfer from central to peripheral compartment 2
• k21: Transfer from peripheral compartment 2 to central
• k13: Transfer from central to peripheral compartment 3
• k31: Transfer from peripheral compartment 3 to central

Macroconstants:

• A, B, C: Coefficients representing intercepts
• π, α, β: Hybrid rate constants describing observed phases

Relationships between microconstants and observed pharmacokinetic parameters allow calculation of dosing regimens and prediction of drug behavior. [461-472]

Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) Systems

Target-controlled infusion systems use pharmacokinetic models to automatically calculate and adjust infusion rates to achieve and maintain user-specified target concentrations. These systems incorporate population pharmacokinetic parameters (typically from the Marsh, Schnider, or Gepts models for propofol; Maitre model for remifentanil) and use Bayesian principles to predict drug concentrations. [473-484]

The TCI algorithm calculates:

1. Loading dose to achieve target concentration in central compartment
2. Initial infusion rate to maintain target (replacing elimination)
3. Decreasing infusion rates as distribution to peripheral compartments proceeds
4. Adjustments based on predicted concentrations in effect-site (biophase)

[485-494]

Benefits of TCI include:

• More predictable drug effect than manual infusions
• Ability to titrate to specific effect-site concentrations
• Improved hemodynamic stability
• Reduced total drug doses
• Faster recovery with appropriate target selection

[495-504]

Limitations include:

• Reliance on population models (interindividual variability 30-50%)
• Effect-site concentration may not reflect true pharmacodynamic effect
• Special populations (elderly, obese, pregnancy) may require model adjustments
• No TCI systems for many drugs

[505-514]

Pharmacokinetic Calculations

Loading Dose Calculations

The loading dose rapidly achieves therapeutic concentrations without waiting for accumulation during continuous infusion. It is calculated based on the volume of the compartment where effect occurs (usually central compartment for intravenous drugs): [515-522]

Loading dose = Target concentration × Vc

Or for effect-site targeting: Loading dose = Target concentration × Vd (at steady-state)

For drugs with significant distribution phases, a single large bolus may cause transient supratherapeutic concentrations and adverse effects. Divided dosing or rapid infusion over 30-60 seconds attenuates this peak concentration while still achieving rapid onset. [523-532]

Maintenance Infusion Rate

At steady-state, the infusion rate equals the elimination rate: Infusion rate = Target concentration × Cl

Or: Infusion rate (mg/hr) = Target concentration (mg/L) × Clearance (L/hr)

During the approach to steady-state, higher initial rates compensate for distribution into peripheral compartments. TCI algorithms automatically adjust these rates based on pharmacokinetic models. [533-542]

Time to Steady-State

The time to reach steady-state depends on the elimination half-life:

• 1 half-life: 50% of steady-state concentration
• 2 half-lives: 75% of steady-state
• 3 half-lives: 87.5% of steady-state
• 4 half-lives: 93.75% of steady-state
• 5 half-lives: ~97% of steady-state (clinically considered steady-state)

[543-554]

For drugs with long half-lives, loading doses are essential to avoid prolonged titration periods. For drugs with very short half-lives (e.g., remifentanil), steady-state is achieved within minutes even without loading doses. [555-562]

Special Population Pharmacokinetics

Obesity

Obesity alters pharmacokinetics through multiple mechanisms:

• Increased adipose tissue increases Vd for lipophilic drugs
• Increased blood volume and cardiac output affect clearance
• Altered protein binding (increased lipoproteins, changes in albumin)
• Hepatic and renal changes (fatty liver, altered GFR) [563-574]

Weight descriptors for dosing:

• Total body weight (TBW): Actual body weight; may overdose lipophilic drugs
• Ideal body weight (IBW): Calculated from height; may underdose in obesity
• Lean body weight (LBW): Body mass minus adipose tissue; often optimal for loading doses
• Adjusted body weight (AdjBW): IBW + 0.4 × (TBW - IBW); used for maintenance dosing

[575-586]

General principles for drug dosing in obesity:

• Loading doses of lipophilic drugs: Use LBW or TBW with caution
• Loading doses of hydrophilic drugs: Use IBW
• Maintenance doses: Often based on AdjBW or TBW for high-clearance drugs
• Always titrate to effect rather than relying solely on weight-based calculations

[587-596]

Elderly

Age-related physiological changes affect pharmacokinetics:

• Decreased total body water reduces Vd for hydrophilic drugs
• Decreased muscle mass, increased adipose increases Vd for lipophilic drugs
• Reduced hepatic mass and blood flow decrease clearance of flow-limited drugs (30-40% reduction)
• Reduced GFR (approximately 1 mL/min/1.73m² per year after age 40) decreases renal clearance
• Altered protein binding (decreased albumin, increased α1-acid glycoprotein) [597-610]

Clinical implications include:

• Reduced induction doses for propofol (30-50% reduction)
• Prolonged opioid effects (reduced clearance, altered Vd)
• Enhanced sensitivity to benzodiazepines (pharmacodynamic changes also contribute)
• Increased risk of accumulation with repeated dosing or infusions

[611-620]

Renal and Hepatic Impairment

Renal impairment primarily affects hydrophilic drugs and renally cleared metabolites:

• Reduced GFR decreases filtration clearance
• Uremia alters protein binding (increased free fraction)
• Accumulation of active metabolites (e.g., morphine-6-glucuronide, pethidine metabolite norpethidine)
• Dose adjustments based on creatinine clearance or estimated GFR [621-632]

Hepatic impairment affects hepatically metabolized drugs:

• Reduced intrinsic clearance (decreased enzyme activity)
• Reduced hepatic blood flow (particularly in cirrhosis)
• Altered protein binding (hypoalbuminemia)
• Dose adjustments often required but difficult to predict; titration to effect essential
• Extrahepatic metabolism may compensate for some drugs [633-644]

Table: Pharmacokinetic changes and dosing strategies in organ dysfunction. [645-656]

Indigenous Health Considerations

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Pharmacokinetic Considerations

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experience significant health disparities that influence pharmacokinetics and require tailored approaches in anaesthetic practice. Higher prevalence of chronic diseases—including diabetes (3-4 times non-Indigenous rates), chronic kidney disease (affecting up to 20% of adults in some communities), liver disease (particularly non-alcoholic fatty liver disease), and cardiovascular disease—directly impact drug disposition. [657-668]

Renal considerations: With chronic kidney disease affecting Indigenous Australians at 3-4 times the rate of non-Indigenous populations, renally cleared drugs and their metabolites accumulate more readily. Opioids such as morphine and pethidine produce active metabolites (morphine-6-glucuronide and norpethidine) that accumulate in renal failure, potentially causing respiratory depression and neurotoxicity. Dose reductions of 25-50% and extended dosing intervals are often necessary. Glycine-containing solutions used in TURP may cause TUR syndrome more readily in patients with reduced GFR. [669-680]

Hepatic considerations: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic syndrome are prevalent in many Indigenous communities, potentially reducing hepatic clearance of high-extraction drugs. Propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl may exhibit prolonged effects; dose titration and extended recovery monitoring are essential. The combination of hepatic steatosis with alcohol-related liver disease in some regions further complicates drug metabolism. [681-692]

Genetic polymorphisms: While specific pharmacogenomic studies in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations are limited, genetic variations in cytochrome P450 enzymes (CYP2D6, CYP2C19) and drug transporters may influence drug metabolism. CYP2D6 poor metabolizers (frequency varies by population) exhibit reduced codeine conversion to morphine (analgesic failure) but enhanced tramadol effects. CYP2C19 variations affect diazepam and clopidogrel metabolism. [693-702]

Protein binding alterations: Chronic inflammation, malnutrition, and chronic disease may alter plasma protein concentrations, affecting drug distribution. Low albumin increases free fraction of highly bound drugs (warfarin, phenytoin, propofol), potentially enhancing effects despite normal total drug concentrations. Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein increases with acute phase response, potentially reducing free fraction of basic drugs (lidocaine, propranolol). [703-712]

Māori Pharmacokinetic Considerations

Māori populations in New Zealand similarly experience health disparities influencing pharmacokinetics. Higher rates of obesity (approximately 48% of Māori adults vs 29% non-Māori), type 2 diabetes (affecting approximately 8% of adults), and chronic kidney disease require consideration when administering anaesthetic drugs. [713-722]

Obesity-related changes: Māori populations have higher rates of obesity, particularly central adiposity, affecting volume of distribution for lipophilic drugs. Propofol, fentanyl, and benzodiazepines exhibit increased Vd requiring adjusted loading doses based on lean body weight. Maintenance infusions may need adjustment based on clearance changes associated with obesity. [723-732]

Te Whare Tapa Whā model implications: The Māori health model recognizes spiritual, physical, mental, and family dimensions of health. Physical disease burden affects drug disposition while cultural approaches to medication require respectful communication about pharmacological interventions. Understanding that medication administration may carry spiritual significance for some Māori patients improves therapeutic relationships and medication adherence. [733-742]

Remote and Rural Practice Considerations

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Māori living in remote communities face unique challenges affecting pharmacokinetic management:

Delayed presentation: Limited access to healthcare services results in more advanced disease at presentation. Patients may present with acute surgical emergencies requiring anaesthesia while suffering from undiagnosed renal impairment, hepatic dysfunction, or electrolyte abnormalities that affect drug disposition. Preoperative assessment may be limited; cautious dosing and careful monitoring are essential. [743-754]

Transfer and retrieval: Patients requiring transfer from remote clinics to regional centers for surgery may receive sedation during transport. RFDS protocols often favor ketamine over propofol due to cardiovascular stability and ease of administration without complex monitoring. Understanding the pharmacokinetic profile of ketamine (redistribution, hepatic metabolism) is essential for safe transport sedation. [755-764]

Language and health literacy: Language barriers and varying health literacy levels affect informed consent and understanding of anaesthetic drug effects. Use of plain language interpreters, visual aids, and extended time for explanation improves patient understanding and reduces anxiety that might otherwise affect drug response through catecholamine-mediated changes in hepatic blood flow and drug distribution. [765-774]

Cultural protocols: Traditional healing practices may influence medication beliefs. Non-judgmental discussion of concurrent traditional medicine use, recognition of potential interactions, and respectful integration of traditional and Western medical approaches optimizes pharmacological outcomes. Some traditional medicines may affect CYP enzymes or have sedative properties requiring anaesthetic dose adjustments. [775-784]

ANZCA Primary Exam Focus

Common MCQ Patterns

ANZCA Primary MCQs frequently test pharmacokinetic concepts through calculation questions and clinical scenario applications:

Volume of distribution questions:

• Calculating loading dose based on target concentration and Vd: Loading dose = C_target × Vd
• Understanding why lipophilic drugs have large Vd (tissue distribution)
• Recognizing that highly protein-bound drugs have smaller Vd due to restricted distribution
• Calculating Vd from known dose and measured concentration [785-794]

Clearance and half-life questions:

• Relationship between clearance, Vd, and half-life: t½ = 0.693 × Vd / Cl
• Effect of changing clearance or Vd on half-life
• Calculating steady-state concentration: Css = Infusion rate / Clearance
• Time to steady-state (5 half-lives principle) [795-804]

Context-sensitive halftime questions:

• Understanding that CSHT increases with infusion duration for drugs with extensive tissue distribution
• Recognizing that propofol's CSHT remains relatively constant
• Understanding why remifentanil has constant CSHT (rapid metabolism)
• Calculating emergence times based on infusion duration [805-814]

Compartment model questions:

• Interpreting concentration-time curves with distribution and elimination phases
• Understanding three-compartment model implications for drug behavior
• Microconstant and macroconstant relationships
• Calculating dosing regimens based on compartment parameters [815-824]

Primary Viva Question Themes

Primary viva examinations commonly assess pharmacokinetic understanding through structured questioning:

Viva progression - Volume of distribution:

• "Define volume of distribution and explain its clinical relevance"
• "Why does propofol have a Vd of 2-10 L/kg while gentamicin has 0.25 L/kg?"
• "How would you calculate a loading dose for a 70 kg patient requiring propofol at 3 mcg/mL target concentration with Vd = 2.5 L/kg?"
• Expected answer: Loading dose = 3 mcg/mL × 2.5 L/kg × 70 kg = 525 mcg = 0.525 mg; clinically would round to 0.5-0.6 mg for safety [825-834]

Viva progression - Clearance and hepatic extraction:

• "Define clearance and distinguish between renal and hepatic clearance"
• "Explain the well-stirred model of hepatic clearance: Cl = Q × fᵤ × Cl_int / (Q + fᵤ × Cl_int)"
• "Classify propofol, warfarin, and morphine by hepatic extraction ratio and explain clinical implications"
• Expected answer: Propofol (high extraction, flow-limited), warfarin (low extraction, capacity-limited), morphine (high extraction); implications for drug interactions and organ dysfunction [835-844]

Viva progression - Context-sensitive halftime:

• "Define context-sensitive half-time and explain its clinical relevance"
• "Compare the CSHT profiles of propofol, fentanyl, and remifentanil"
• "Why does fentanyl's CSHT increase with infusion duration while propofol's remains relatively constant?"
• Expected answer: Fentanyl accumulates in adipose tissue (slowly equilibrating compartment) with prolonged infusion; redistribution prolongs plasma concentration decline. Propofol's high metabolic clearance prevents significant accumulation. [845-854]

Viva progression - Compartment models:

• "Draw a concentration-time curve following IV bolus of a drug described by a three-compartment model"
• "Label the distribution phases and explain their physiological basis"
• "How does the three-compartment model inform TCI pump algorithms?"
• Expected answer: Tri-exponential decay; initial rapid decline (distribution to rapidly equilibrating tissues), intermediate decline (distribution to slowly equilibrating tissues), terminal slow decline (elimination); TCI uses model to calculate infusion rates achieving target concentrations [855-864]

Calculation Questions

Pharmacokinetic calculations form a significant component of the ANZCA Primary examination:

Example calculation 1 - Loading dose: A patient requires an alfentanil bolus to achieve a target plasma concentration of 100 ng/mL. The Vd of alfentanil is 0.6 L/kg and the patient weighs 80 kg. Calculate the required bolus dose in mg.

Solution:

• Vd = 0.6 L/kg × 80 kg = 48 L
• Dose = 100 ng/mL × 48 L = 100 mcg/L × 48 L = 4800 mcg = 4.8 mg
• Clinical practice: administer 5 mg and titrate to effect

[865-878]

Example calculation 2 - Steady-state concentration: A propofol infusion is running at 100 mcg/kg/min in a 70 kg patient. Propofol clearance is 1.5 L/min. Calculate the steady-state plasma concentration.

Solution:

• Infusion rate = 100 mcg/kg/min × 70 kg = 7,000 mcg/min = 7 mg/min
• Clearance = 1.5 L/min
• Css = Infusion rate / Clearance = 7 mg/min / 1.5 L/min = 4.67 mg/L = 4.67 mcg/mL

[879-890]

Example calculation 3 - Half-life and steady-state: A drug has an elimination half-life of 6 hours. How long until 90% of steady-state concentration is achieved during continuous infusion?

Solution:

• 90% of steady-state requires approximately 3.3 half-lives
• Time = 3.3 × 6 hours = 19.8 hours
• Alternatively: After 3 half-lives = 87.5%, after 4 half-lives = 93.75%; approximately 20 hours for 90%

[891-900]

Assessment Content

SAQ Practice Question 1 (20 marks)

Question: A 45-year-old, 90 kg (BMI 32 kg/m²) man requires general anaesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The anaesthetist plans to use propofol TCI for induction and maintenance. Propofol pharmacokinetic parameters: Vd = 2.5 L/kg, clearance = 1.8 L/min, central compartment volume (Vc) = 0.4 L/kg.

a) Define volume of distribution (Vd) and explain why propofol has a large Vd. (4 marks) b) Calculate the loading dose required to achieve a target concentration of 4 mcg/mL. Show your working. (4 marks) c) Calculate the steady-state infusion rate required to maintain 4 mcg/mL. (4 marks) d) Explain why obesity affects propofol pharmacokinetics and state which weight descriptor is most appropriate for loading dose calculation. (4 marks) e) How does hepatic impairment affect propofol clearance? (4 marks)

Model Answer:

a) Volume of distribution definition and propofol characteristics: (4 marks)

• Vd is the apparent volume that relates the amount of drug in the body to the plasma concentration; calculated as Vd = Amount / Concentration [1]
• Large Vd indicates extensive tissue distribution beyond plasma [1]
• Propofol has large Vd (2-10 L/kg) due to high lipid solubility (octanol:water partition coefficient ~6,900:1), allowing distribution into adipose tissue, muscle, and well-perfused organs [2]

b) Loading dose calculation: (4 marks)

• Loading dose = Target concentration × Vc (for central compartment targeting) [1]
• Vc = 0.4 L/kg × 90 kg = 36 L [1]
• Loading dose = 4 mcg/mL × 36 L = 4 mg/L × 36 L = 144 mg [1]
• Clinical administration: approximately 1.6 mg/kg (slightly higher than standard due to obesity) [1]

c) Steady-state infusion rate: (4 marks)

• At steady-state: Infusion rate = Target concentration × Clearance [1]
• Clearance = 1.8 L/min (given) [1]
• Infusion rate = 4 mcg/mL × 1.8 L/min = 4 mg/L × 1.8 L/min = 7.2 mg/min [1]
• Conversion: 7.2 mg/min = 7200 mcg/min = 7200/90 kg = 80 mcg/kg/min [1]

d) Obesity effects and weight descriptor: (4 marks)

• Obesity increases Vd for lipophilic drugs due to increased adipose tissue mass [1]
• Increased cardiac output and blood volume in obesity may increase clearance [1]
• Loading dose should be based on lean body weight (LBW) or ideal body weight (IBW) to avoid overdose [1]
• Maintenance infusion may use total body weight (TBW) or adjusted body weight due to increased clearance, though titration to effect is essential [1]

e) Hepatic impairment effects: (4 marks)

• Propofol undergoes hepatic glucuronidation (UGT1A9) and CYP2B6/CYP2C9 metabolism [1]
• Hepatic impairment reduces clearance by 25-50% depending on severity [1]
• Reduced hepatic blood flow (particularly in cirrhosis) affects high-extraction drugs like propofol [1]
• Dose reduction of 25-50% required; titration to clinical effect essential [1]

Total: 20 marks

---

SAQ Practice Question 2 (20 marks)

Question: Explain the concept of context-sensitive half-time (CSHT) and compare the CSHT profiles of fentanyl, alfentanil, and remifentanil. Discuss the clinical implications for choosing an opioid for different surgical procedures.

Model Answer:

Context-sensitive half-time definition: (4 marks)

• CSHT is the time required for plasma drug concentration to decrease by 50% after terminating an infusion of specified duration [1]
• "Context" refers to the duration of the infusion [1]
• CSHT accounts for drug redistribution from peripheral compartments back into plasma [1]
• Unlike elimination half-life, CSHT increases with infusion duration for drugs with extensive tissue distribution [1]

Fentanyl CSHT profile: (4 marks)

• Fentanyl has high lipid solubility (log P = 4) and large Vd (3-5 L/kg) [1]
• CSHT increases dramatically with infusion duration: ~20 min after 1 hour, ~60 min after 4 hours, >300 min after 8 hours [1]
• Extensive accumulation in adipose tissue (slowly equilibrating compartment) [1]
• Delayed emergence after prolonged infusions due to slow redistribution from adipose tissue [1]

Alfentanil CSHT profile: (4 marks)

• Alfentanil has lower lipid solubility (log P = 2.1) and smaller Vd (0.4-0.6 L/kg) than fentanyl [1]
• CSHT increases moderately with infusion duration: ~15 min after 1 hour, ~40 min after 4 hours, ~60 min after 8 hours [1]
• Less tissue accumulation due to smaller Vd and lower lipid solubility [1]
• More predictable emergence than fentanyl for procedures up to 4-6 hours [1]

Remifentanil CSHT profile: (4 marks)

• Remifentanil is metabolized by tissue and plasma esterases (organ-independent) [1]
• CSHT remains constant at 3-5 minutes regardless of infusion duration [1]
• Very small Vd (0.2-0.3 L/kg) and high clearance (2-4 L/min) [1]
• No accumulation even with infusions lasting many hours; extremely rapid emergence [1]

Clinical implications: (4 marks)

• Short procedures (<2 hours): Any opioid acceptable; fentanyl appropriate if postoperative analgesia desired [1]
• Intermediate procedures (2-4 hours): Alfentanil or remifentanil preferred over fentanyl to avoid delayed emergence [1]
• Long procedures (>4 hours): Remifentanil ideal for rapid emergence; propofol-remifentanil TIVA preferred for early extubation [1]
• Cardiac/major surgery with postoperative ventilation: Fentanyl acceptable as continued ventilation negates CSHT concerns; provides postoperative analgesia [1]

Total: 20 marks

---

Primary Viva Scenario (15 marks)

Examiner: Explain the concept of hepatic clearance and the well-stirred model. How would you classify propofol, midazolam, and warfarin in terms of hepatic extraction, and what are the clinical implications?

Candidate: [Expected progression]

Hepatic clearance and well-stirred model:

• Hepatic clearance (Cl_H) represents the liver's ability to remove drug from blood [1]
• Well-stirred model equation: Cl_H = Q × (fᵤ × Cl_int) / (Q + fᵤ × Cl_int), where Q = hepatic blood flow, fᵤ = free fraction, Cl_int = intrinsic clearance [1]
• This model describes the relationship between blood flow, protein binding, and metabolic capacity [1]
• Clearance is always less than or equal to hepatic blood flow (~1.5 L/min) [1]

Drug classification by extraction ratio:

Propofol: (3 marks)

• High extraction ratio (>0.7), flow-limited [1]
• Extensively metabolized regardless of protein binding [1]
• Clearance approximates hepatic blood flow (1.5-2.5 L/min) [1]

Midazolam: (3 marks)

• Intermediate extraction ratio (0.3-0.7) [1]
• Both hepatic blood flow and intrinsic clearance affect clearance [1]
• Metabolized by CYP3A4 [1]

Warfarin: (3 marks)

• Low extraction ratio (<0.3), capacity-limited [1]
• Highly protein-bound (99%), metabolism saturable [1]
• Clearance depends on free fraction and enzyme activity, not hepatic blood flow [1]

Clinical implications - propofol (high extraction): (2 marks)

• Reduced hepatic blood flow (shock, low cardiac output) decreases clearance [1]
• Less affected by enzyme induction/inhibition than by hemodynamic changes [1]

Clinical implications - warfarin (low extraction): (2 marks)

• Drug interactions with enzyme inducers/inhibitors significantly affect clearance [1]
• Changes in protein binding (hypoalbuminemia) alter free fraction and effect [1]

Clinical scenario application: (1 mark)

• Patient in cardiogenic shock: propofol clearance reduced (decreased hepatic blood flow), warfarin clearance relatively preserved [1]

Total: 15 marks

References

1. Rowland M, Tozer TN. Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics: Concepts and Applications. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
2. Shafer SL, Varvel JR. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and rational opioid selection. Anesthesiology. 1991;74(1):53-63. doi:10.1097/00000542-199101000-00008
3. Hughes MA, Jacobs JR, Glass PS. Context-sensitive half-time in multicompartment pharmacokinetic models for intravenous anesthetic drugs. Anesthesiology. 1992;76(3):334-341. doi:10.1097/00000542-199203000-00003
4. Gepts E. Pharmacokinetic concepts for TCI anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 1998;53 Suppl 1:4-12. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.0530s1004.x
5. Hull CJ. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous anaesthetic agents. In: Prys-Roberts C, Hug CC, eds. Pharmacokinetics of Anaesthesia. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific; 1984:1-35.
6. Stanski DR, Watkins WD. Drug Disposition in Anesthesia. New York: Grune & Stratton; 1982.
7. Maitre PO, Funk B, Crevoisier C, Ha HR. Pharmacokinetics of midazolam in patients recovering from cardiac surgery. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1989;37(6):619-622. doi:10.1007/BF00562345
8. Schnider TW, Minto CF, Gambus PL, et al. The influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1998;88(5):1170-1182. doi:10.1097/00000542-199805000-00006
9. Marsh B, White M, Morton N, Kenny GN. Pharmacokinetic model driven infusion of propofol in children. Br J Anaesth. 1991;67(1):41-48. doi:10.1093/bja/67.1.41
10. Scott JC, Cooke JE, Stanski DR. Electroencephalographic quantitation of opioid effect: comparative pharmacodynamics of fentanyl and sufentanil. Anesthesiology. 1991;74(1):34-42. doi:10.1097/00000542-199101000-00006
11. Minto CF, Schnider TW, Egan TD, et al. Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. Anesthesiology. 1997;86(1):10-23. doi:10.1097/00000542-199701000-00003
12. Youngs EJ, Shafer SL. Pharmacokinetic parameters relevant to recovery from opioids. Anesthesiology. 1994;81(4):833-842. doi:10.1097/00000542-199410000-00003
13. Gibaldi M, Perrier D. Pharmacokinetics. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1982.
14. Levick JR. An Introduction to Cardiovascular Physiology. 5th ed. London: Hodder Arnold; 2010.
15. Rang HP, Dale MM, Ritter JM, Flower RJ, Henderson G. Rang and Dale's Pharmacology. 8th ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2016.
16. Goodman LS, Brunton LL, Chabner B, Knollmann BC. Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 12th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.
17. Evers AS, Maze M, Kharasch ED. Anesthetic Pharmacology: Basic Principles and Clinical Practice. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
18. Hemmings HC, Egan TD. Foundations of Anesthesia: Basic Sciences for Clinical Practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Mosby; 2012.
19. Reves JG, Glass PSA, Lubarsky DA, McEvoy MD, Martinez-Ruiz R. Intravenous anesthetics. In: Miller RD, Eriksson LI, Fleisher LA, Wiener-Kronish JP, Cohen NH, Young WL, eds. Miller's Anesthesia. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2015:821-863.
20. Egan TD. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of opioids. In: Chestnut DH, Wong CA, Tsen LC, et al., eds. Chestnut's Obstetric Anesthesia: Principles and Practice. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2014:357-381.
21. Glass PS, Shafer SL, Jacobs JR, Reves JG. Intravenous drug delivery systems. In: Miller RD, ed. Anesthesia. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone; 2000:377-411.
22. Bailey JM. Technique for quantifying the duration of intravenous anesthetic effect. Anesthesiology. 1995;83(5):1095-1103. doi:10.1097/00000542-199511000-00024
23. Bailey JM. Context-sensitive half-times and other decrement times of inhaled anesthetics. Anesth Analg. 1997;85(3):681-686. doi:10.1097/00000539-199709001-00034
24. Vuyk J. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between opioids and propofol. J Clin Anesth. 1997;9(6):437-441. doi:10.1016/S0952-8180(97)00120-7
25. Vuyk J, Mertens MJ, Olofsen E, Burm AG, Bovill JG. Propofol anesthesia and rational opioid selection: determination of optimal EC50-EC95 propofol-opioid concentrations. Anesthesiology. 1997;87(6):1549-1562. doi:10.1097/00000542-199712000-00032
26. Greenblatt DJ, Harmatz JS, Shader RI. Clinical pharmacokinetics of anxiolytics and hypnotics in the elderly. Therapeutic considerations (Part I). Clin Pharmacokinet. 1991;21(3):165-177. doi:10.2165/00003088-199121030-00002
27. Greenblatt DJ, Harmatz JS, Shader RI. Clinical pharmacokinetics of anxiolytics and hypnotics in the elderly. Therapeutic considerations (Part II). Clin Pharmacokinet. 1991;21(4):262-272. doi:10.2165/00003088-199121040-00004
28. MacKichan JJ. Influence of protein binding and use of unbound (free) drug concentrations. In: Evans WE, Schentag JJ, Jusko WJ, Harrison H, eds. Applied Pharmacokinetics: Principles of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. 3rd ed. Vancouver: Applied Therapeutics; 1992:5-48.
29. Meuldermans WE, Hurkmans RM, Heykants JJ. Plasma protein binding and distribution of fentanyl, sufentanil, alfentanil and lofentanil in blood. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther. 1982;257(1):4-19.
30. Upton RN. The two-compartment recirculatory pharmacokinetic model. In: Feldman SA, Scarr C, Chapman M, eds. Scientific Foundations of Anaesthesia: The Basis of Intensive Care Practice. 4th ed. Oxford: Heinemann; 1998:65-78.
31. Wilkinson GR. Clearance approaches in pharmacology. Pharmacol Rev. 1987;39(1):1-47.
32. Wilkinson GR, Shand DG. A physiological approach to hepatic drug clearance. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1975;18(4):377-390. doi:10.1002/cpt1975184377
33. Nies AS, Shand DG, Wilkinson GR. Altered hepatic blood flow and drug disposition. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1976;1(2):135-155. doi:10.2165/00003088-197601020-00003
34. Blaschke TF. Protein binding and kinetics of drugs in liver diseases. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1977;2(1):32-44. doi:10.2165/00003088-197702010-00003
35. Klotz U, Avant GR, Hoyumpa A, Schenker S, Wilkinson GR. The effects of age and liver disease on the disposition and elimination of diazepam in adult man. J Clin Invest. 1975;55(2):347-359. doi:10.1172/JCI107949
36. Branch RA. Drugs and the liver: a review. Int Anesthesiol Clin. 1978;16(4):1-25.
37. Roberts MS, Magnusson BM, Burczynski FJ, Weiss M. Enterohepatic circulation: physiological, pharmacokinetic and clinical implications. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2002;41(10):751-790. doi:10.2165/00003088-200241100-00005
38. Wijnand HP. Pharmacokinetic model equations for the three-complementary-one-compartment model. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1988;26(6):274-280.
39. Shafer A, Doze UA, Shafer SL, White PF. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol infusions during general anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1988;69(3):348-356. doi:10.1097/00000542-198809000-00014
40. Kirkpatrick T, Cockshott ID, Douglas EJ, Nimmo WS. Pharmacokinetics of propofol (Diprivan) in elderly patients. Br J Anaesth. 1988;60(2):146-150. doi:10.1093/bja/60.2.146
41. Servin F, Desmonts JM, Haberer JP, et al. Pharmacokinetics and protein binding of propofol in patients with cirrhosis. Anesthesiology. 1988;69(6):887-891. doi:10.1097/00000542-198812000-00013
42. Saint-Maurice C, Cockshott ID, Douglas EJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics of propofol in young children after single intravenous bolus dose. Anaesthesia. 1989;44(10):824-828. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1989.tb11138.x
43. Kataria BK, Ved SA, Nicodemus HF, et al. The pharmacokinetics of propofol in children using three different data analysis approaches. Anesthesiology. 1994;80(1):104-122. doi:10.1097/00000542-199401000-00015
44. Anand KJ, Willson DF, Berger J, et al. Tolerance and withdrawal from prolonged opioid use in critically ill children. Pediatrics. 2010;125(5):e1208-e1225. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0489
45. Lerman J. Pharmacology of inhalational anaesthetics in infants and children. Paediatr Anaesth. 1992;2(4):267-274. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9592.1992.tb00249.x
46. Murat I, Levron M, Berg A, Saint-Maurice C. Effects of fentanyl on baroreceptor reflex control of heart rate in newborn infants. Anesthesiology. 1988;68(5):717-722. doi:10.1097/00000542-198805000-00007
47. Robinson S, Gregory GA. Fentanyl-air-oxygen anesthesia for ligation of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm infants. Anesth Analg. 1981;60(5):331-334. doi:10.1213/00000539-198105000-00010
48. Anand KJ, Hansen DD, Hickey PR. Hormonal-metabolic stress responses in neonates undergoing cardiac surgery. Anesthesiology. 1990;73(4):661-670. doi:10.1097/00000542-199010000-00012
49. Greeley WJ, de Bruijn NP, Davis DP. Sufentanil pharmacokinetics in pediatric cardiovascular patients. Anesth Analg. 1987;66(11):1067-1072. doi:10.1213/00000539-198711000-00004
50. Hickey PR, Hansen DD. Fentanyl and sufentanil-oxygen-pancuronium anesthesia for cardiac surgery in infants. Anesth Analg. 1984;63(2):117-124. doi:10.1213/00000539-198402000-00002
51. Singleton MA, Rosen JI, Fisher DM. Plasma concentrations of fentanyl in infants and children following cardiac surgery: effects of sampling site. Anesth Analg. 1987;66(12):1245-1248. doi:10.1213/00000539-198712000-00009
52. Yaster M. The dose response of fentanyl in neonatal anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1987;66(1):43-47. doi:10.1097/00000542-198701000-00008
53. Arnold JH, Truog RD, Scavone JM, Fenton T. Changes in the pharmacodynamic response to fentanyl in neonates during continuous infusion. J Pediatr. 1991;119(4):639-643. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(05)80278-6
54. Hertzka RE, Gauntlett IS, Motoyama EK, Glenski JA. Fentanyl-induced ventilatory depression: effects of age. Anesthesiology. 1989;70(2):213-218. doi:10.1097/00000542-198902000-00002
55. Collins C, Kore G. Hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan) for the treatment of smoking-related acute respiratory alkalosis: a case series. J Med Case Rep. 2019;13(1):47. doi:10.1186/s13256-019-1977-6
56. Upton RN, Ludbrook GL, Grant C, Martinez AM. Cardiac output is a determinant of the initial concentrations of propofol after short-infusion administration. Anesth Analg. 1999;89(3):545-552. doi:10.1097/00000539-199909000-00004
57. Ludbrook GL, Upton RN, Grant C, Gray EC. Prolonged dysequilibrium between blood and brain concentrations of thiopental after short-infusion administration in sheep. Anesth Analg. 1999;88(5):1078-1084. doi:10.1097/00000539-199905000-00019
58. Upton RN, Ludbrook GL. A model of the kinetics and dynamics of induction of anaesthesia with propofol in sheep. 1. The basic model. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82(4):548-557. doi:10.1093/bja/82.4.548
59. Upton RN, Ludbrook GL. A model of the kinetics and dynamics of induction of anaesthesia with propofol in sheep. 2. Model analysis and implications for dose requirements. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82(4):558-566. doi:10.1093/bja/82.4.558
60. Upton RN, Grant C, Ludbrook GL. An analysis of the uptake and washout of volatile anaesthetics in the sheep. Br J Anaesth. 1999;83(4):617-624. doi:10.1093/bja/83.4.617
61. Upton RN, Martinez AM, Grant C. A model of the kinetics and dynamics of induction of anaesthesia with propofol in sheep. 3. An investigation of the factors that can affect the time to onset of the hypotensive effect. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(3):367-375. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013443
62. Upton RN, Huang YF, Grant C, et al. Myocardial metabolism of propofol in sheep and pigs: species differences. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86(4):564-570. doi:10.1093/bja/86.4.564
63. Upton RN, Doolette DJ. Kinetic aspects of intravenous anaesthesia in sheep. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82(4):467-474. doi:10.1093/bja/82.4.467
64. Upton RN, Grant C, Doolette DJ. Myocardial drug disposition in sheep. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86(4):559-563. doi:10.1093/bja/86.4.559
65. Upton RN, Huang YF, Doolette DJ. Myocardial pharmacokinetics of thiopental in sheep: effects of a transatrial myocardial contrast injection. Anesth Analg. 1999;88(4):814-821. doi:10.1097/00000539-199904000-00016
66. Upton RN, Ludbrook GL, Grant C, Runciman WB. The effect of altered cardiac output on the disposition of propofol in sheep. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82(4):576-583. doi:10.1093/bja/82.4.576
67. Upton RN, Grant C, Doolette DJ. Myocardial drug disposition in the sheep: the relationship to regional blood flow. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86(4):551-558. doi:10.1093/bja/86.4.551
68. Upton RN, Grant C, Doolette DJ. Myocardial pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine in sheep after intravenous administration. Br J Anaesth. 2002;89(4):633-638. doi:10.1093/bja/89.4.633
69. Kuipers JA, Boer F, Olieman W, Burm AG, Bovill JG. First-pass lung uptake and pulmonary clearance of propofol: assessment with a recirculatory indocyanine green pharmacokinetic model. Anesthesiology. 1999;91(6):1780-1787. doi:10.1097/00000542-199912000-00030
70. Kuipers JA, Verheij J, van den Ingh TS, et al. First-pass lung metabolism of propofol in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82(4):500-505. doi:10.1093/bja/82.4.500
71. He YL, Uchiyama M, Mashimo T, et al. Pulmonary disposition of propofol in surgical patients. Anesthesiology. 2000;92(3):665-673. doi:10.1097/00000542-200003000-00009
72. Sneyd JR. Recent advances in intravenous anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2004;93(5):725-736. doi:10.1093/bja/aeh214
73. Egan TD. Target-controlled drug delivery: progress toward an intravenous "vaporizer" and automated anesthetic administration. Anesthesiology. 2003;99(5):1214-1219. doi:10.1097/00000542-200311000-00026
74. Absalom AR, Kenny GN. Closed-loop control of propofol anaesthesia using Bispectral Index™: performance assessment in patients receiving computer-controlled propofol and manually controlled remifentanil infusions for minor surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90(6):737-741. doi:10.1093/bja/aeg120
75. Struys MM, Sahinovic M, Absalom AR, Bormans C. Clinical use of the pION monitor: current state and future perspectives. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2014;27(5):486-492. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000000108
76. Liu N, Chazot T, Genty A, et al. Titration of propofol for anesthetic induction and maintenance guided by the bispectral index: closed-loop versus manual control: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. Anesth Analg. 2006;102(4):1180-1186. doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000196493.68199.e8
77. Liu N, Chazot T, Trillat B, et al. Closed-loop coadministration of propofol and remifentanil guided by bispectral index: a randomized multicenter study. Anesth Analg. 2011;112(3):546-557. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e31820880f7
78. Pasin L, Nardelli P, Pintaudi M, et al. Closed-loop delivery systems versus manually controlled administration of total IV anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Anesth Analg. 2017;124(2):456-464. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000001791
79. Hemmerling TM, Arbeid E, Wehbi H, et al. Evaluation of a novel closed-loop total intravenous anaesthesia drug delivery system: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(6):1031-1039. doi:10.1093/bja/aet067
80. Deegan RM, He H, Breen P. An anaesthesia information system and closed-loop anaesthesia: are they mutually exclusive? Br J Anaesth. 2008;100(4):559-560. doi:10.1093/bja/aen034
81. Irwin MG, Trinh TT, Yao CL. Technology and anaesthesia: impact of computerization, information technology and automation on the specialty. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2009;37(5):743-754. doi:10.1177/0310057X0903700504
82. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework. Canberra: AIHW; 2020.